Is DWI the worst crime in the world?

[fey_spirit]

Thank you.
I do what I can - but people who want to excuse this kind of behavior really make me mad... how many more of us have to be killed, put in comas, wounded and scarred for life before "people" wake up?

That is what we do. My DH has his CDL and the alcohol level he is allowed is less than level allowed for other classes of license. He will seldom even have a glass of wine if he has to workk the next mornng. Neither one of us will drive if we have had a few cocktails.

I have pretty strong feelings about drunk driving. My 2nd cousin's wife was killed by a drunk driver. She and my cousin had six children. a few months later my cousin suffered a fatal heart attack and left those kids without parents. Thank God they were welcome in his brother's home. He had 4 kids so they raised 10 children. My father firmly believed that his cousin died from a broken heart. Driving drunk is a crime and should be treated as such.

 

[bicker]

But see you are on a slippery slope. If you reflexes are slowed at a BAC of 0.08 then they also must be slowed (to a lesser degree) at 0.07. So why then is a BAC of 0.07 acceptable? And why was a BAC 0.09 acceptable a few years ago and now it earns public shaming? Why do we tolerate ANY BAC while driving?

And you (the general you not the specific you) are unable or unwilling to distinguish between someone driving at 0.08 and someone at 0.20.

You know your insistence on protecting people like the one that hurt me makes me wonder if you aren't desperately trying to justify your own bad behavior.

Such comments are both superlatively inflammatory and missing the point. dejr_8 is making a point about degrees... it is a reflection of the fact that the world is not black-and-white. There is no "protecting people like the one that hurt me" going on. That's perhaps something easier for you to argue against, but it is not what the person you're discussing this with is saying.

 

[fey_spirit]

I will respond to this if you would like to take it to private E mail... away from the disboards. That is all I'm going to say to you on the subject here, because frankly I don't wish to be banned.

Such comments are both superlatively inflammatory and missing the point. dejr_8 is making a point about degrees... it is a reflection of the fact that the world is not black-and-white. There is no "protecting people like the one that hurt me" going on. That's perhaps something easier for you to argue against, but it is not what the person you're discussing this with is saying.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Such comments are both superlatively inflammatory and missing the point. dejr_8 is making a point about degrees... it is a reflection of the fact that the world is not black-and-white. There is no "protecting people like the one that hurt me" going on. That's perhaps something easier for you to argue against, but it is not what the person you're discussing this with is saying.

And I find comments that appear to minimize the horrors of drunken driving superlatively inflammatory, particularly when made after people have told of their personal connection to the crime. It is all how you look at it. Perhaps it is easier for some to continually use the "slippery slope" argument just as a means of debate. For some of us, that exercise simply for the sake of arguing is a worthless venture.

 

[eliza61]

That's why victims aren't allowed on juries in court cases against those involved in the incident that made them victims.

true but they are often the ones in the media, in the congressman and senators office getting new legislation passed and in the town halls and business offices threatening boycotts and otherwise influencing the people who sit on those juries.

Yes, it would be nice if those pesky things like killing some one while driving drunk were judged totally without any emotion at all but that's not the way it works.

Maybe the BAC limit was arbitrarily pulled out of thin air, maybe not. I have no idea how they decide on these limits but the limits are there.

Maybe I'm not understanding op's point. I took it to mean that the person should not have been judged so harshly since it was "only" a DWI.

 

[dejr_8]

Maybe I'm not understanding op's point. I took it to mean that the person should not have been judged so harshly since it was "only" a DWI.

My point is that the treatment (i.e. public shaming, job loss) of a Public individual arrested for DWI is independent of their BAC. Should someone be vilified for a BAC of 0.08 - especially when this IS an arbitrary limit?

Now if you blow a BAC twice/three times the limit, throw the book at 'em. Blow at the legal limit, I have issues with the severity of the punishment (for both Public and Private individuals).

 

[LiberalPrincess]

My point is that the treatment (i.e. public shaming, job loss) of a Public individual arrested for DWI is independent of their BAC. Should someone be vilified for a BAC of 0.08 - especially when this IS an arbitrary limit?

Now if you blow a BAC twice/three times the limit, throw the book at 'em. Blow at the legal limit, I have issues with the severity of the punishment (for both Public and Private individuals).

Speeding laws are arbitrary. Reckless driving charges, arbitrary. Amount of money stolen that makes a crime a misdemeanor versus a felony is arbitrary. Statutes of limitation on major crimes are arbitrary. You have seen how much this subject means personally to people, yet you are still arguing minutiae just for the sake of arguing. That is not arbitrary, it is simply insensitive. Go on as you must, but you know what you are doing.

 

[MrsPete]

My brother was joking that his friend was a better driver when he was drunk than when he was sober

They showed us a movie way back in driver's ed class (I graduated in the early 80s, so this is nothing new):

They took a couple professional race car drivers and had them drive an obstacle course sober. No problem. They all aced it -- it was nothing that any driver shouldn't be able to do.

Then they gave the drivers a couple drinks and had them drive it again. Their perception was that they'd driven as well or better than when they were sober -- they were happy with their performance.

Finally, they showed a video of the drivers in their second run: they were knocking over cones, driving out of the course, etc. Yet they all THOUGHT they were doing a better job. The movie ended with them watching their second run and saying, "Ooops. That wasn't how I saw it at all."

 

[MrsPete]

My point is that the treatment (i.e. public shaming, job loss) of a Public individual arrested for DWI is independent of their BAC. Should someone be vilified for a BAC of 0.08 - especially when this IS an arbitrary limit?

Now if you blow a BAC twice/three times the limit, throw the book at 'em. Blow at the legal limit, I have issues with the severity of the punishment (for both Public and Private individuals).

Why do you think the limit is arbitrary? Anytime a law is made, a line must be drawn: This is acceptable, more is not okay. You can't leave it up to the judgement of the person who's drinking or the police officer. It has to be the same for everyone. We don't live in the Wild West.

You just don't agree with the limit that has been set by our lawmakers.

 

[tonilea]

My point is that the treatment (i.e. public shaming, job loss) of a Public individual arrested for DWI is independent of their BAC. Should someone be vilified for a BAC of 0.08 - especially when this IS an arbitrary limit?

Now if you blow a BAC twice/three times the limit, throw the book at 'em. Blow at the legal limit, I have issues with the severity of the punishment (for both Public and Private individuals).

In my state the DWI law is a two part law, you can be convicted on the statutory limit (.08) or on impairment. It doesn't have to be both.

I think .08 is where everyone is/or should be showing impairment based on the science of intoxication. Some people show impairment much sooner, particularly those unaccustomed to the effects of alcohol.

 

[bicker]

And I find comments that appear to minimize the horrors of drunken driving superlatively inflammatory

The point is that those comments aren't "minimizing the horrors of drunken driving" - they're drawing a distinction between those horrors and lesser and greater horrors from other things. There must be a discussion of, and integration of, shade of gray in our society. The black-and-white consideration of things, that has become the norm over the last 20-40 years, is wrecking our society.

particularly when made after people have told of their personal connection to the crime.

dejr_8 made it very clear that those comments were directed at "the general you not the specific you".

It is all how you look at it.

That's the point!

 

[bicker]

That's why victims aren't allowed on juries in court cases against those involved in the incident that made them victims.

true but they are often the ones in the media, in the congressman and senators office getting new legislation passed and in the town halls and business offices threatening boycotts and otherwise influencing the people who sit on those juries.

Perhaps, but judges, specifically, are where they are to ensure fairness. Fairness does not mean blindness; it means that murder is worse than assault, and assault is worse than theft. That spectrum (including all the bits I didn't mention in between and around those extremes) must be maintained - indeed must be regained - in our society.

Maybe I'm not understanding op's point.

I don't think you're alone in not understanding the point. I recognize it because I find myself often unfairly attacked in this forum in the same way several folks are unfairly attacking dejr_8 in this thread, when I raise a similar point of distinctions between and around extremes. I find such unfair distortion and corruption of what I'm saying maddening when it is thrown at me; I bet dejr_8 is having a similar experience in this thread.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

The point is that those comments aren't "minimizing the horrors of drunken driving" - they're drawing a distinction between those horrors and lesser and greater horrors from other things. There must be a discussion of, and integration of, shade of gray in our society. The black-and-white consideration of things, that has become the norm over the last 20-40 years, is wrecking our society.

dejr_8 made it very clear that those comments were directed at "the general you not the specific you".

That's the point!

Why must that discussion occur? Because YOU say so? All laws are, in fact, arbitrary, and nothing you have said has given any other viewpoint or reason for the laws to change. You may think the "black and white consideration of things" is wrecking society, I don't agree. I personally think arguing for no reason and deliberately downplaying a crime that has directly hurt people on this board simply for the sake of argument shows a bigger problem in society -- a callousness towards feelings just to make one's misguided point. The mentality of "the ends justify the means at any cost" is the real issue.

 

[bicker]

Why must that discussion occur? Because YOU say so?

First, because it is a discussion board.

Second: Why must the discussion not occur? Because YOU say so?

Third: The best thing about a discussion board is that if you don't like a discussion, you aren't required to participate. It's a great system.

All laws are, in fact, arbitrary, and nothing you have said has given any other viewpoint or reason for the laws to change.

You mean that you feel that dejr_8 hasn't convinced you. I'm not trying to convince you (of anything other than the fact that dejr_8 isn't in favor of death or anything like that), and dejr_8 has made some good point that may sway others.

As I alluded to before, my greatest concern is the black-and-white perspective that has led, in this country, to the kind of arbitrariness that dejr_8 refers to. That kind of mania has affected far more than DUI: Just in the last week I've participated in a discussion about how it has evoked terrible extremism in the regulation of the freedom of speech, as well as a religious discussion where extremism of this sort has also led to damaging capriciousness.

There is way too much dog-with-a-bone-edness in our society, today, and it is causing way too much arbitrary changes to laws and governance.

You may think the "black and white consideration of things" is wrecking society, I don't agree.

So let that discussion continue, without trying to squash it because you want to have an unrebutted soap-box for just one side of the discussion.

 

[bicker]

Why must that discussion occur? Because YOU say so?

First, because it is a discussion board.

Second: Why must the discussion not occur? Because YOU say so?

Third: The best thing about a discussion board is that if you don't like a discussion, you aren't required to participate. It's a great system.

All laws are, in fact, arbitrary, and nothing you have said has given any other viewpoint or reason for the laws to change.

You mean that you feel that dejr_8 hasn't convinced you. I'm not trying to convince you (of anything other than the fact that dejr_8 isn't in favor of death or anything like that), and dejr_8 has made some good point that may sway others.

As I alluded to before, my greatest concern is the black-and-white perspective that has led, in this country, to the kind of arbitrariness that dejr_8 refers to. That kind of mania has affected far more than DUI: Just in the last week I've participated in a discussion about how it has evoked terrible extremism in the regulation of the freedom of speech, as well as a religious discussion where extremism of this sort has also led to damaging capriciousness.

There is way too much dog-with-a-bone-edness in our society, today, and it is causing way too much arbitrary changes to laws and governance.

You may think the "black and white consideration of things" is wrecking society, I don't agree.

So let that discussion continue, without trying to squash it because you want to have an unrebutted soap-box for just one side of the discussion.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

First, because it is a discussion board.

Second: Why must the discussion not occur? Because YOU say so?

Third: The best thing about a discussion board is that if you don't like a discussion, you aren't required to participate. It's a great system.

You mean that you feel that dejr_8 hasn't convinced you. I'm not trying to convince you (of anything other than the fact that dejr_8 isn't in favor of death or anything like that), and dejr_8 has made some good point that may sway others.

As I alluded to before, my greatest concern is the black-and-white perspective that has led, in this country, to the kind of arbitrariness that dejr_8 refers to. That kind of mania has affected far more than DUI: Just in the last week I've participated in a discussion about how it has evoked terrible extremism in the regulation of the freedom of speech, as well as a religious discussion where extremism of this sort has also led to damaging capriciousness.

There is way too much dog-with-a-bone-edness in our society, today, and it is causing way too much arbitrary changes to laws and governance.

So let that discussion continue, without trying to squash it because you want to have an unrebutted soap-box for just one side of the discussion.

LOL! I am not the one saying, "I recognize it because I find myself often unfairly attacked in this forum in the same way several folks are unfairly attacking dejr_8 in this thread, when I raise a similar point of distinctions between and around extremes. I find such unfair distortion and corruption of what I'm saying maddening when it is thrown at me; I bet dejr_8 is having a similar experience in this thread. "

You have now positioned yourself and the OP as unfairly attacked. That is not a discussion, that is whining. I am merely explaining that others have a different interpretation and why. The OP doesn't seem to understand the existing laws while others have given specific reasons for them. We have heard personal stories of people who have lost family members, friends and been personally injured by drunk drivers. Yet, still the opinions against the laws (by the OP) continue. Talk about "dog-with-a-bone-edness". You seem to portray people that have a different opinion (and in fact personal knowledge as to the ramifications of drunk driving) as an unfair distortion and corruption of your opinions. Perhaps it is you that needs to walk away. Indeed, a great system.

 

[DisneyFed]

BAC is only one factor considered in a DUI case, and it's never "found out" until well after the stop, accident, etc. etc

Something else got you into the position where your BAC is being analyzed...even then, it's still only one consideration at trial

......just sayin'

 

[bicker]

You have now positioned yourself and the OP as unfairly attacked. That is not a discussion, that is whining.

Fair enough; let's stop discussing the discussion, and let the discussion about DUI, and about arbitrary and capricious governance, continue unabated.

I am merely explaining that others have a different interpretation and why.

I'm not sure how your most recent messages map to that, but whatever.

The OP doesn't seem to understand the existing laws while others have given specific reasons for them.

I don't think anyone questions that the laws need to exist. The concern is that limits and such are arbitrary and capricious, and deeper than that is the fact that the limits (for certain transgressions, but not others) are being pushed by mob mentality rather than fair administration and reason.

You seem to portray people that have a different opinion (and in fact personal knowledge as to the ramifications of drunk driving) as an unfair distortion and corruption of your opinions.

Not at all. What I labeled as unfair distortion were assertions that the OP was effectively "protecting people like the one that hurt" someone. That was an inflammatory distortion. I won't belabor the issue here because we're not talking about the discussion anymore.

 

[bicker]

BAC is only one factor considered in a DUI case, and it's never "found out" until well after the stop, accident, etc. etc

Yes, but many states place mandates on sentencing tied to BAC. And it is those sentencing guidelines that are being pushed by politics.

 

[DisneyFed]

Yes, but many states place mandates on sentencing tied to BAC. And it is those sentencing guidelines that are being pushed by politics.

Mine didn't Heck, a simple DUI is only a misdemeanor (up until your 5th offense) and a fine--well, and a sliding scale of license suspension depending on offense number...no sentencing guidelines necessary.

I know they come up with those numbers by some sort of science, but not sure what it is....I relied on your level of impairment, and rarely did that let me down.

Matter of fact, you didn't have to take the test at all if you don't want to (this MAY have changed).....

No worries for me...if I had you in front of that machine, you were done....unless you did blow and it was .00--in which case you went to the hospital for diabetic shock (which has happened--not to me, but to a troop partner)...

I don't think I ever heard anyone say---well, let's forget everything else and just see what the Breathalyzer says....of course, I will agree that this has probably happened...

Just like any investigation, if you're relying on one piece of evidence, you're on shaky ground to begin with....